How does a person who has not been scientifically trained evaluate the validity of scientific and medical claims? Dr. Crocker was recently asked this question by someone who was curious about the "O-ring." In response, she went through the article in question, but also developed some general principles for use in other situations. Please note that, in what follows, the article is in italics. It has been copied and pasted in order to contribute to the clarity of the argument. Dr. Crocker's comments are inserted in blue and her summary of the general principles she used in this assessment can be found at the end of the article.  

The O- Ring Test and the Science Behind QRA (Quantum Reflex Analysis)

Quantum physicist Dr. Fritz A. Popp proved Scientists never say they proved anything--it is only possible to prove mathematical truths and the following claim does not qualify as mathematics or even physics. In general, seeing such a claim in an article that purports to be scientific should immediately raise one's suspicions. that all mammals are controlled by a sophisticated biofield This statement contains many untruths, as can be ascertained by a simple Google search. Dr. Popp discovered that living organisms emit coherent photons. 

• He did not say that only mammals do this;
• He did not claim that they are controlled by the signals they emit (equivalent to saying that people are controlled by the warmth they emit); 
• He hypothesized that the field is emitted by DNA- an intra-body communication system that is phase coordinated, with its communication signals. 
• He speculated that this may have something to do with subcellular communication. 

He most certainly did not prove this kind of thing. There is a significant difference between reporting results, interpreting the results, and speculating on what they mean. And what is done in this Internet article goes beyond speculation and into the realm of quackery. operating at 2x the speed of light. Nothing goes faster than light. Ask a sixth grader! No other known system in the world has such speed or sophistication as the body's biofield. The phrase "in the world" is ridiculously grandiose. In fact, the entire sentence is rather pretentious. Statements of this nature should immediately alert the reader that what they are reading may be a scam.

The Bi-Digital O-Ring test is a kinesiological testing created by Dr. Omura, a Japanese medical doctor. This test has the patient make a circle with their fingers and tested how difficult it is to open the fingers to assess their health. Here we have a mixture of truth and fiction. Remember the AITSE article about how a spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down? Of course, we all know that general weakness may be a sign of disease. But that this test is totally without scientific merit can be ascertained by simply remembering that science relies on being able to take accurate and repeatable measurements. The difficulty of opening the patient's fingers is a very subjective measurement. It is akin to the physician taking your temperature by kissing your forehead instead of using a thermometer or tasting your urine instead of using a dipstick. In fact, Dr. R. Gorringe used this test in "treatment" of a patient and his patient died. He, quite rightly, lost his license to practice medicine. In addition, each of the main organ/gland control points that are tested via QRA are specific classical acupuncture points. These points were identified and developed in to the classical acupuncture meridian system over 4,500 years ago, and are used for treatment and healing purposes on almost every continent of the world today! Unfortunately, the fact that people use it, or even that they have used it for years, does does not mean that the system works as more than a placebo. Moms the world over kiss their kids better but, practically speaking, kissing has no medical benefits. Again, note the grandiose claims (over 4,500 years ago, almost every continent).

Using the O-ring test, the practitioner can identify within seconds This is tempting a desperate patient with instantaneous results. whether a food or nutrient strengthens a specific organ point, has no effect at all, or makes it weaker. Using this science-based technology, This is neither science-based (no repeatable measurements) nor technology (pulling fingers apart?). Rather, it is quackery based. For more about this, see the May and June AITSE updates. the practitioner can determine the specific hierarchy of organ/gland dysfunction, pinpoint stressors, identify the "short circuits," and eliminate the imbalances permanently. Again, these are huge claims--and if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. According to an article on Wikipedia : "BDORT is operator dependent, meaning that what actually happens is that the operator diagnoses whatever it is that he believes in. One cannot scientifically evaluate "belief." In the context of testing, then, it would be impossible to challenge the practitioner's belief in his apparatus." John Charles Welch, MD - Tribunal Findings, par. 314[5]

In addition, mud therapies and ERT (Emotional Repolarization Technique) seeks to diminish further interferences within the biofield. QRA was developed by Dr. Robert Marshall, PhD, CCN, DACBN, CEO of Premier Research Labs, as a system that cohesively merged the science of the quantum physics with acupuncture and kinesiology. When article starts showcasing the qualifications of someone involved, it may be because their argument is weak. The same applies when an article that is meant for the general public is littered with scientific-sounding words. They may be trying to snow you!  Dr. Marshall was able to apply his knowledge as a biophysicist with the patented bi-digital o-ring test created by Dr. Yoshiaki Omura, in order to create this exquisite mode of testing that is able to get to "the root of any problem." Unfortunately, people with a lot of qualifications still like to get rich quick. The scientific studies show that these systems have NO diagnostic power nor do they provide any medical benefits.

So, what are the rules of thumb that one can use to assess these kind of claims? Dr. Crocker would suggest the following bunk-detecting principles; if you have more ideas, let her know!

1. Check if the article claims that something has been proven; remember that this in itself is a very unscientific statement.
2. Check if the article makes claims to have accomplished something that is beyond what has actually been done or is even possible to do. How could Dr. Popp have shown all mammals are controlled by anything?
3. Check if the article is scientifically accurate--even to the level of a junior high student. The elementary physics mistake in this article is a give-away.
4. Beware of grandiose claims. If the article or book says that it will cure all ills and reverse 100% of a particular condition, remember that if it looks like snake oil, sounds like snake oil, and tastes like snake oil...
5. Check if the claims can be tested scientifically, that is, can they be measured. If they can't, then it is possible that the claims being made are not scientific. For example, the assertion that all girls would secretly like to be princesses is not scientific. After all, what double blind study showed that? Did they ask all girls? But, the girls were keeping it secret, so how could they? You get the idea. 
6. Be careful when an article makes too much of the scientific qualifications of those involved; it may mean their argument is weak. For example, a scientist who says that "all research scientists agree with me," is using an argument from authority, not scientific reasoning. Also, keep in mind that being a scientist or a physician does not make one infallible. 
7. Finally, be skeptical. Do not be quick to believe people, especially when it involves your health and/or your money! 

Drinking

Scientists Assessing Scientists

"And this is why they say that no one has ever seen a water-baby. For my part, I believe that the naturalists get dozens of them when they are out dredging; but they say nothing about them, and throw them overboard again, for fear of spoiling their theories." The Water-Babies by Charles Kingsley, 1863, p. 89.

This quote from an old children's book makes an interesting point. If a scientific paper flies in the face of an established theory, will it be thrown overboard? According to Richard Smith, MD, former editor of the British Medical Journal, it might. He says that peer review, the process whereby the community of scientists assesses which papers are worth publishing, who should get tenure, which projects should be funded, and even who should be awarded a Nobel prize, does not work. In fact, "we have no convincing evidence of its benefits but a lot of evidence of its flaws."  

Surely not! After all, the main argument of the folks wishing to stifle debate about global climate change, evolution, and the latest miracle drug is that challenges to their point of view cannot be found in peer-reviewed scientific journals. (Please note that this claim is false; there are a small number of papers in the peer-reviewed literature that challenge anthropogenic climate change, aspects of evolution, and other controversial theories.) But, according to Dr. Smith and the research he cites, peer review also does not "ensure quality of biomedical research," "many studies published in medical journals...are not only scientifically poor but also have done great damage," and put quite simply, "peer review doesn't work."   

Interestingly, Dr. Smith says that peer review does a lot of harm. Quite apart from giving some theories more credibility than they merit, it is "an ineffective, slow, expensive, biased, inefficient, anti-innovatory, and easily abused lottery." That is, authors from less prestigious institutions, those with new and innovative ideas, and those who challenge the status quo find that they cannot get published. And those who know how to work the system, say the right things, or have the right connections can. The icing on the cake is then when other scientists refuse to consider the theories of colleagues that think outside the box because those ideas are as yet unpublished. 

So, what is the answer? Dr. Smith suggests that all papers should be published on the Internet so that 100's instead of a few people can review them. Obviously, this system may cause information overload. In addition, it will not help the average person to figure out the scientific merit of what they are being told. That is the mission of AITSE: to educate to public so that they can assess the validity of "scientific" claims and to encourage integrity in science.